mark1958 wrote:
Yes i agree the improvement in the noise at higher isos are indeed impressive but if that was the only improvement, get a 5D ---or the 1DmkIIN. I am not claiming there is not a further improvement with the III but the relative improvement is not that substantial that it would excite me to get the new camera. Mark
Ditto Mark. Just bought a 1D Mark II N. Maybe I'll go for a 1D Mark III N While I'd love to have gotten a Mark III, I don't need those headaches now.
What's the C.Fn 4-2-2, my camera only has C.Fn 4-2-0 and 4-2-1
Lide
The C.Fn 4-2-2 is a special option for those who don't pay attention when they type. It is very similar to C.Fn 4-2-3 except reversed and only active on day of every third full moon.
Hrow wrote:
The C.Fn 4-2-2 is a special option for those who don't pay attention when they type. It is very similar to C.Fn 4-2-3 except reversed and only active on day of every third full moon.
mark1958 wrote:
Yes i agree the improvement in the noise at higher isos are indeed impressive but if that was the only improvement, get a 5D ---or the 1DmkIIN. I am not claiming there is not a further improvement with the III but the relative improvement is not that substantial that it would excite me to get the new camera. Mark
I found improvement in every category over the 1DMKIIn. The noise control is just one. The feature set is better; the menu system is quicker and more intuitive; the DR is better; the IQ is better; the battery life is better; and on my copy the AF is better.
This camera is definitely a substantial improvement over the 1DMKIIn. If your basing you thoughts on the problems with AF some are having not everyone is having such problems.
Unless canon comes through with a fix, the 1D Mark IIN is going to hold its value
GeneO wrote:
Ditto Mark. Just bought a 1D Mark II N. Maybe I'll go for a 1D Mark III N While I'd love to have gotten a Mark III, I don't need those headaches now.
Befuddled yet again by the M3.... on the 20D a 4MB CF card yields 403 images when set to RAW and small JPG . Same settings on the M3 yield 238 images. The 20D RAW is 6.6 MB while the M3 RAW is 11MB. The M3 has 25% more pixels and a couple of extra bits but does that double the file size? Not a big deal, just curious.
The couple of extra bits could make quite a difference if file size. Try converting the same file to 8-bit and 16-bit and see the relative sizes you get.
Hrow wrote:
Befuddled yet again by the M3.... on the 20D a 4MB CF card yields 403 images when set to RAW and small JPG . Same settings on the M3 yield 238 images. ....
Theres a decent sized jpg within the RAW too, that can be extracted easily, maybe you could drop the extra jpg?
Hey Jim that is good news for you. i just believe that if there are so many with problems, then perhaps it is a problem with a specific lot or set of lots. Unless this is resolved though, I think many folks are going to have second thoughts about accepting their orders. If this is really the problem, then that would be the best case scenario because it means that it is not inherent to the new AF system
Jim Victory wrote:
I found improvement in every category over the 1DMKIIn. The noise control is just one. The feature set is better; the menu system is quicker and more intuitive; the DR is better; the IQ is better; the battery life is better; and on my copy the AF is better.
This camera is definitely a substantial improvement over the 1DMKIIn. If your basing you thoughts on the problems with AF some are having not everyone is having such problems.
mark1958 wrote:
Hey Jim that is good news for you. i just believe that if there are so many with problems, then perhaps it is a problem with a specific lot or set of lots. Unless this is resolved though, I think many folks are going to have second thoughts about accepting their orders. If this is really the problem, then that would be the best case scenario because it means that it is not inherent to the new AF system
There is no doubt that some have defective cameras but my guess is alot of them just don't know the camera well enough and don't have their CF set properly.
Those that are trying to use their settings from their 1DMKII or 1DMKIIn are going to have problems because the settings are different and they effect the performance differently as well. If Canon would have taken the time to explain the settings better there wouldn't be as many problems being cited.
There does seem to be a trend from certain early serial numbers having problems, even in educated hands, but it is by no means wide spread. My guess, from Rob's serial numbers, he may have had two cameras from that batch.
I agree 100%. This 1D3 has amazed me. I have not experienced any problems with the AF system. I haven't had an opportunity to try it in similar conditions as the RG test but from the situations I've used it in so far I'm more then pleased with it. The IQ is fantastic and the files that I'm getting at 1600 and 3200 ISO are nothing short of amazing. I've had the 1D2N and 1Ds2 and I also have a 5D and this camera blows them away in IQ right out of the camera. I can't wait to see what the new 1Ds3 and 5D2 look like with some of this new technology. I'm not saying that there can't be some AF problems in certain specific situations (hot temperatures, backlit subjects, etc..) but I also found that I had to re-read the canon manual several times to figure out the best CF settings. I have 3 different CF setups for different types of shooting. It seems to work for me at least. I hope to get a chance to try it out in similar conditions as RG's test soon but for now I have no complaints and enjoy using this camera so much.
Jim Victory wrote:
There is no doubt that some have defective cameras but my guess is alot of them just don't know the camera well enough and don't have their CF set properly.
Those that are trying to use their settings from their 1DMKII or 1DMKIIn are going to have problems because the settings are different and they effect the performance differently as well. If Canon would have taken the time to explain the settings better there wouldn't be as many problems being cited.
There does seem to be a trend from certain early serial numbers having problems, even in educated hands, but it is by no means wide spread. My guess, from Rob's serial numbers, he may have had two cameras from that batch.
I wonder if RG cameras could have been early production when he says that the 2 he tested the serial numbers are 5,000 apart and also he has a third one that is following the same patterns?
"We've shot the heck out of two production bodies (with serial numbers about 5000 increments apart"
From what I can gather and I don't know this to be true there are just over 22,000 units now? If the 5 being the first number anyaway I would think 5,000 is a little ways into the production cycle if his first one was serial 01.
I agree wholeheartedly! The Image Quality beats all the D cameras I have owned! (from 10-5)even a simple landscape comes through with beautiful color and detail that I have not seen before! When I stick the flash card in the reader and they start appearing on the monitor, I am leaning back in my 'puter chair saying "WOW" .......with a satisfied little smile on my face...
Mines a Keeper!
The MkIII RAW files are a bit bigger than the 5D's even though the MPs are lower. Not sure why there is more "file overhead" but it does fill up a flash card quicker.
SoundHound wrote:
The MkIII RAW files are a bit bigger than the 5D's even though the MPs are lower. Not sure why there is more "file overhead" but it does fill up a flash card quicker.
please tell me is there any way to see the actuations of my mk 3. i already have an exif viewer that works at my mk i and mk ii but at mkiii the program cant see anything .please if anyone know how to see the actuations tell me .i want a program for mac or pc .thanks
"SoundHound wrote:
The MkIII RAW files are a bit bigger than the 5D's even though the MPs are lower. Not sure why there is more "file overhead" but it does fill up a flash card quicker.
14-bits vs 12-bits"
Not sure about that: Exploring .cr2 files with dcraw suggests that they are variations of .tif files with 16 bits [2 bytes] per channel so they could already hold 16-bit data so it should not make any difference to the file size whether they hold 12- or 14- bit data.
While I'd love to have gotten a Mark III, I don't need those headaches now.